Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to accept adult social care decisions taken by a court appointed deputy. This is because the Council has apologised to the deputy, will better support the deputies, and is improving guidance for its staff for working with deputies. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council does not accept decisions he makes as court appointed deputy for his daughter, Ms C. Mr B says the Council has failed to effectively implement the recommendations of a safeguarding officer, to complete a best interest process to address and resolve the disputed authority of the deputies.
2. Mr B and his joint deputy decided Ms C should not receive certain medicines, but the Care Provider acting for the Council gave Ms C the medicines anyway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms C is an adult with social care needs. The Council meets Ms C’s social care needs via a company called Imagine Independence (the Care Provider).
7. Ms C lacks mental capacity to make certain decisions for herself. Mr B, along with another person, is joint deputy. This means Mr B is authorised by the Court of Protection to make decisions jointly with the other deputy on Ms C’s behalf.
8. The Council accepts and acknowledges Mr B’s joint role as a deputy. The Council accepts it has not always been timely in the advice and support offered to Mr B in his role as deputy, and it has apologised to Mr B for the impact. The Council has explained that moving forward it would like to better support the deputies.
9. The Council recognised its guidance to staff on working with deputies could be better and it is taking steps to improve that guidance.
10. I do not consider it likely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
11. If there is a dispute over a particular decision, such as whether Ms C should have certain medication, then the Court of Protection would need to decide what is in Ms C’s best interests.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman